Claims that Democratic
presidential frontrunner Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., tried to subvert
campaign fundraising laws were properly thrown out under the anti-SLAPP
statute, the Court of Appeal for this district ruled yesterday.

Peter F. Paul’s
contention that the senator was engaged in a conspiracy to avoid reporting
nearly $2 million to Clinton’s successful 2000 campaign in New York, as part of
which he was induced to make the donations by promises of a future business
relationship with former President Bill Clinton, which never materialized, was
supported by “insufficient circumstantial evidence for Paul to carry even the
minimal burden on a special motion to strike,” Presiding Justice Dennis Perluss
wrote in an unpublished opinion.

The former president was
originally named as a defendant in the case, but was dismissed on demurrer.

Judicial Watch Replaced

Paul is a businessman
and former associate of comic book illustrator Stan Lee. He was originally
represented by Judicial Watch, but his counsel in the latest proceedings are
affiliated with another conservative advocacy group, the U.S. Justice
Foundation, which is based in San Diego County.

Paul claims he spent
more than $1.9 million to underwrite the lavish Hollywood fundraising gala in
August 2000 that attracted Brad Pitt, Diana Ross and Cher.

Paul said he financed
the event and other fundraisers because Bill Clinton agreed to join the board
of his company, Stan Lee Media, after he left the White House. Paul has said
the event cost nearly $2 million, but campaign reports at the time estimate it
was about $500,000.

The Hollywood fundraiser
was the subject of a criminal trial of Hillary Clinton’s former national
finance director, David Rosen, who was acquitted in May 2005 of lying to the
Federal Elections Commission about the event. Rosen was also a defendant in the
case, but his anti-SLAPP motion, like Clinton’s, was granted by Los Angeles
Superior Court Judge Aurelio Munoz, and that ruling was previously upheld by
the Court of Appeal.

Deposition Denied

Munoz also denied Paul’s
motion for leave to take Hillary Clinton’s deposition with respect to the
issues raised by the anti-SLAPP motion, a ruling that was also upheld by the
Court of Appeal.

It was originally
assigned to Judge Ernest Hiroshige, but Paul’s attorneys filed an affidavit of
prejudice under Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 170.6. Hiroshige is an appointee
of Jerry Brown and a longtime member of the Japanese-American Democratic Club.

The case was reassigned
to Judge David Workman—who has since retired—who was a member of the Los
Angeles County Republican Central Committee for six years prior to his election
to the bench in 1980. But Workman was “papered” by attorneys for Rosen.

The case then went to
Munoz, a Democrat and Brown appointee, who originally dismissed it under the
fugitive disentitlement doctrine because Paul was fighting extradition from
Brazil on charges of manipulating the price of Stan Lee Media Inc. stock.

Paul was later
extradited and refiled the suit. He pled guilty to the securities charge two
years ago.

Munoz had originally
denied Clinton’s motion on the ground that it was not heard within the 30-day
limit then imposed by the statute. The Court of Appeal reversed, saying the
motion may have been timely and that even if it was not, the judge had
discretion to hear it on its merits, leading to his ruling in favor of Clinton
and her committee in April of last year.

Paul’s attorneys argued
that Hillary Clinton broke federal campaign finance laws, and was thus not
entitled to the protection of the anti-SLAPP law, because she helped plan the
Hollywood fundraiser. That involvement alleged made Paul’s campaign contributions
“hard money” far exceeding the $2,000 limit a person could give under federal
law at the time.

But Perluss called that
argument “fatally flawed,” and noted a FEC audit found that neither Clinton nor
her Senate campaign accepted any illegal funds in connection with the Hollywood
fundraiser.

“In fact, the record as
presented to us strongly suggests Senator Clinton’s and Clinton for Senate’s
conduct was perfectly legal,” he wrote.